Erebus 25 years on
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have never flown in Antarctica personally but I have operated many missions in the mountains of the arctic which I was trained for by the military.
I have rarely seen in aviation such a weak and obfuscated argument as that which Vette, Mahon, and NZALPA pumped out to excuse the crew of their part in this disaster. The crew could and should have noticed where the company flight plan was taking them. The chart they were given along with the 'flt plan' showed the track going direct to the TACAN for heaven's sake. OTOH if Collins had indeed plotted the track on a chart procured by himself - of which Mahon was certain based only on the flimsiest testimony of the Collins family - he should have noticed that the aircraft was flying a full 4º off course by the simple expedient of looking at the effing nav display. Never mind all this nonsense that Mahon went into at some length about not being able to see this or that island along the way or the ludicrous suggestion that it was reasonable to misidentify the one they most definitely did see - the 2500' high Beaufort Island. None of that btw should excuse the company and the regulator of their many shortcomings or their lack of contrition before the Commission.
I cannot be sure that I will not one day make a fatal error. But I can say with absolute certainty that it will not be because I laboured under the silly conclusion - alighted on by Justice Mahon - that given a nav computer as accurate as on that flight (and exceeded nowadays by the common or garden ipad), a pilot can dispense with the duty to verify the route entered is as expected.
I have rarely seen in aviation such a weak and obfuscated argument as that which Vette, Mahon, and NZALPA pumped out to excuse the crew of their part in this disaster. The crew could and should have noticed where the company flight plan was taking them. The chart they were given along with the 'flt plan' showed the track going direct to the TACAN for heaven's sake. OTOH if Collins had indeed plotted the track on a chart procured by himself - of which Mahon was certain based only on the flimsiest testimony of the Collins family - he should have noticed that the aircraft was flying a full 4º off course by the simple expedient of looking at the effing nav display. Never mind all this nonsense that Mahon went into at some length about not being able to see this or that island along the way or the ludicrous suggestion that it was reasonable to misidentify the one they most definitely did see - the 2500' high Beaufort Island. None of that btw should excuse the company and the regulator of their many shortcomings or their lack of contrition before the Commission.
I cannot be sure that I will not one day make a fatal error. But I can say with absolute certainty that it will not be because I laboured under the silly conclusion - alighted on by Justice Mahon - that given a nav computer as accurate as on that flight (and exceeded nowadays by the common or garden ipad), a pilot can dispense with the duty to verify the route entered is as expected.
Last edited by oggers; 21st Jul 2016 at 14:41.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Auckalnd
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with your post oggers.
The counter argument goes "ah but you were trained properly by the military; whereas Collins received half arsed training superimposed on a flawed infrastructure, and he didn't know what he didn't know. And there was a precedent already established to fly low VFR".
To which we reply even IF one accepts all of that, Collins still made some very bad errors of judgement and professionalism, which were significant casual factors in the accident by themselves.
The counter argument goes "ah but you were trained properly by the military; whereas Collins received half arsed training superimposed on a flawed infrastructure, and he didn't know what he didn't know. And there was a precedent already established to fly low VFR".
To which we reply even IF one accepts all of that, Collins still made some very bad errors of judgement and professionalism, which were significant casual factors in the accident by themselves.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: bkk
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SKY GODS
Lets be 100% honest.There is a culture in places like SA, NZ AUS UK amongst others where a high % of pilots in those countries and others consider themselves "superior" to their fellow pilots from other parts of the planet.This is of course just utter rubbish, but one of the results of this poor attitude is reflected in what went on at Air New Zealand around 1979 and likely even now, where these SKY GODS operate as if they are perfect and cannot make a mistake......FFS listen to what other parts of our system are advising you and get rid of this garbage attitude.I worked with a significant number of BRITS/OZZIES/ENZED/SAFAS for a very long time so can back up my observations with vast exposure.Sick.
Lets be 100% honest.There is a culture in places like SA, NZ AUS UK amongst others where a high % of pilots in those countries and others consider themselves "superior" to their fellow pilots from other parts of the planet.This is of course just utter rubbish, but one of the results of this poor attitude is reflected in what went on at Air New Zealand around 1979 and likely even now, where these SKY GODS operate as if they are perfect and cannot make a mistake......FFS listen to what other parts of our system are advising you and get rid of this garbage attitude.I worked with a significant number of BRITS/OZZIES/ENZED/SAFAS for a very long time so can back up my observations with vast exposure.Sick.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New Zealand
Age: 64
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’m glad that oggers in #1241 has referred to Beaufort Island because it provides a good demonstration the sort of person that Mahon actually was. In his report, he dealt with the issue quite briefly, in less than a page (pages 115 & 118):
From the mid-1980s onwards, Messrs Mahon, Vette and Macfarlane spent significant amounts of their time blowing smoke up eachother’s backsides and urinating in eachother’s pockets. Vette was the first to come out with a book, being ‘Impact Erebus’ in 1983. Mahon wrote a 5-page forward, while MacFarlane contributed a 48-page appendix. The next book was in 1984, with Mahon’s ‘Verdict of Erebus”, which referred approvingly to MacFarlane’s appendix (p247). It was Macfarlane’s turn in 1991, with ‘The Erebus Papers’, the undoubted hero of which was Mahon, with Vette and the author tied for second. Despite the mutual admiration, there were occasions when the three musketeers did not get their stories straight, Beaufort Island being an example. In his report, Mahon clearly concluded that all those on the flight deck, Mulgrew included, saw Beaufort Island but did not recognise it as such. But then Vette contradicted Mahon, probably without even knowing: In Vette’s book, he said that if Mulgrew had seen Beaufort Island, he would have recognised it. Therefore, Vette concluded, Mulgrew did not see Beaufort Island and when he said “land ahead” he was referred to somewhere else. (pages 52 and 53)
Vette’s book would have caused a bit of a problem for Mahon when he came to write his own book in 1984, but not much of one. If, in hindsight, he agreed with Vette, all he had to do was say so. Instead, he constructed an elaborate story that was consistent with Vette’s book but which was presented to the reader as a set of conclusions Mahon reached on his visit to Antarctica in November 1980, which occurred well before he wrote his report. In other words, it wasn’t ‘I’ve changed my mind after reading Vette’s book’. Instead, it was ‘This is what I thought from Day 1.’ From pages 199 to 203 of ‘Verdict on Erebus’:
Having described his alleged state of mind before he left for Antarctica, Mahon goes on to refer to the visit itself, where he retraced the track of TE901:
On the author goes, presenting more conclusions allegedly reached in November 1980,none of which appeared in the report written the following year. It then starts to get embarrassing:
The question has to be asked as to the sort of person who claims to have formed the above conclusions before writing the following some months later:
Multi-choice:
“The next allegation was that the flight crew made a serious and inexplicable error in not identifying Beaufort Island during the course of the two orbits. It was alleged that the position of Beaufort Island would have indicated to the flight crew that they were on the eastern side of the island …”
“[B]ecauseCaptain Collins believed that his nav track was taking him down the centre of McMurdo Sound, no one on the flight deck would ever identify any island on or near their path as being Beaufort Island. … [A]lthough no direct reference is made to the point in the CVR transcript apart from Mr Mulgrew’s remark about “land ahead”, the five persons on the flight deck on the flight deck undoubtedly saw Beaufort Island and mistook it for a different island altogether … Anyhow, in the minds of the crew the island which they must have seen could not possibly have been Beaufort Island, because as previously indicated, the latter landmark would be many miles away in quite a different location.”
“[B]ecauseCaptain Collins believed that his nav track was taking him down the centre of McMurdo Sound, no one on the flight deck would ever identify any island on or near their path as being Beaufort Island. … [A]lthough no direct reference is made to the point in the CVR transcript apart from Mr Mulgrew’s remark about “land ahead”, the five persons on the flight deck on the flight deck undoubtedly saw Beaufort Island and mistook it for a different island altogether … Anyhow, in the minds of the crew the island which they must have seen could not possibly have been Beaufort Island, because as previously indicated, the latter landmark would be many miles away in quite a different location.”
From the mid-1980s onwards, Messrs Mahon, Vette and Macfarlane spent significant amounts of their time blowing smoke up eachother’s backsides and urinating in eachother’s pockets. Vette was the first to come out with a book, being ‘Impact Erebus’ in 1983. Mahon wrote a 5-page forward, while MacFarlane contributed a 48-page appendix. The next book was in 1984, with Mahon’s ‘Verdict of Erebus”, which referred approvingly to MacFarlane’s appendix (p247). It was Macfarlane’s turn in 1991, with ‘The Erebus Papers’, the undoubted hero of which was Mahon, with Vette and the author tied for second. Despite the mutual admiration, there were occasions when the three musketeers did not get their stories straight, Beaufort Island being an example. In his report, Mahon clearly concluded that all those on the flight deck, Mulgrew included, saw Beaufort Island but did not recognise it as such. But then Vette contradicted Mahon, probably without even knowing: In Vette’s book, he said that if Mulgrew had seen Beaufort Island, he would have recognised it. Therefore, Vette concluded, Mulgrew did not see Beaufort Island and when he said “land ahead” he was referred to somewhere else. (pages 52 and 53)
Vette’s book would have caused a bit of a problem for Mahon when he came to write his own book in 1984, but not much of one. If, in hindsight, he agreed with Vette, all he had to do was say so. Instead, he constructed an elaborate story that was consistent with Vette’s book but which was presented to the reader as a set of conclusions Mahon reached on his visit to Antarctica in November 1980, which occurred well before he wrote his report. In other words, it wasn’t ‘I’ve changed my mind after reading Vette’s book’. Instead, it was ‘This is what I thought from Day 1.’ From pages 199 to 203 of ‘Verdict on Erebus’:
"But, equally significantly, was the view I had seen from the Hercules of Beaufort Island. Again I had seen exactly what the crew of the DC10 had seen and from the same height and angle of vision. And I thought I had discovered why the crew never identified Beaufort Island, and I was sure now that I knew why Peter Mulgrew had not realised that Beaufort Island was on the wrong side of the aircraft."
...
“But what about Peter Mulgrew? He had been to Antarctica on several occasions. He must have known what Beaufort Island looked like. Why had he not pointed it out to the aircrew? Before we left for Antactica I had been giving this question careful consideration. Was it possible that for some reason , Mulgrew had never seen the island as the air craft passed by it?"
...
“But what about Peter Mulgrew? He had been to Antarctica on several occasions. He must have known what Beaufort Island looked like. Why had he not pointed it out to the aircrew? Before we left for Antactica I had been giving this question careful consideration. Was it possible that for some reason , Mulgrew had never seen the island as the air craft passed by it?"
Having described his alleged state of mind before he left for Antarctica, Mahon goes on to refer to the visit itself, where he retraced the track of TE901:
“So as soon as the Hercules commended to roll to the left in completion of its final orbit I had looked forward and to the left at Beaufort Island, and from my positionon the flight deck, which had been Mulgrew’s position, Beaufort Island had immediately disappeared from view as the aircraft banked left at a 25 degree angle. …
“It seemedto me that this … answered one of the major queries of the investigation. Mulgrewhad been to the Antarctic on previous occasions and he would have identified BeaufortIsland without hesitation during the orbiting sequences. But he had not seen it.”
“It seemedto me that this … answered one of the major queries of the investigation. Mulgrewhad been to the Antarctic on previous occasions and he would have identified BeaufortIsland without hesitation during the orbiting sequences. But he had not seen it.”
On the author goes, presenting more conclusions allegedly reached in November 1980,none of which appeared in the report written the following year. It then starts to get embarrassing:
“In later days, I though over again what I have just described. I tried to imagine PeterMulgrew making his way forward along the aisle, moving a little slowly with his artificial legs …."
"Perhaps as he neared the flight deck a passenger detained him for a minute or two." [More possible causes of a delay.]
“If only Mulgrew had reached the flight deck two minutes earlier …”
“I could not escape the conclusion that a delay of only two minutes in reaching the flightdeck … had prevented him from averting disaster. And I reflected, as I had done so often before, upon the malignity of the hovering fates which had shadowed throughout its journey the flight path of TE901.”
"Perhaps as he neared the flight deck a passenger detained him for a minute or two." [More possible causes of a delay.]
“If only Mulgrew had reached the flight deck two minutes earlier …”
“I could not escape the conclusion that a delay of only two minutes in reaching the flightdeck … had prevented him from averting disaster. And I reflected, as I had done so often before, upon the malignity of the hovering fates which had shadowed throughout its journey the flight path of TE901.”
The question has to be asked as to the sort of person who claims to have formed the above conclusions before writing the following some months later:
“[A]lthoughno direct reference is made to the point in the CVR transcript apart from MrMulgrew’s remark about “land ahead”, the five persons on the flight deck on theflight deck undoubtedly saw Beaufort Island … “
Multi-choice:
- A dishonest person – No such conclusions were reached before Mahon wrote his report.
- A stupid person – Anyone who read both Mahon’s report and his book would see (1) above.
- A vain person – Not capable of admitting that he had changed his mind.
- A pompous jackass – This is how Mahon concluded the finding in his report: “The suggestion of error on the part ofthe flight crew in not identifying Beaufort Island will therefore be seen to bethe result of an apparent confusion on the part of its proponents.”
- All of the above.
Last edited by ampan; 23rd Jul 2016 at 00:24.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Perhaps this piece taken from John King publication, quoting Bob Thomson, who has previously been mentioned in this thread may be elucidating re Peter Mulgrew experience down on the ice.
What Mulgrew saw or not, is no excuse for the crew to misidentify Beaufort Island, the ability to positively identify the Island was easily available, the Lat/Long readout from the AINS would have taken but a minute or two.
When I heard the transcript of the CVR I fell out of my chair. Most of the times Mulgrew had been there he'd gone in by sea, and all his travel from Scott Base was to the South. Hardly anybody ever went into Lewis Bay.
Had they orbited Ross Island they would have seen the cloud. If a pilot is unsure he always goes up, never down.
Last edited by prospector; 23rd Jul 2016 at 01:54.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Auckalnd
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a few points raised in the above posts that warrant comment.
ampan - excellent post #1244. I wasn't aware of this discrepancy in Mahon's espousings, but it's actually pretty huge. Just another example of how he was blinkered, and brainwashed himself when confronted with evidence that didn't support his staunchly held mantra that the crew were blameless.
The Beaufort island issue has not been given the attention it deserves. It is inconceivable that Collins and Cassin didn't see it. They were flying VFR. Part of flying VFR is to identify significant geographical landmarks, and an island of 2500' elevation (when you're intending to fly even lower) would surely qualify - not just adopt some "meh, whatever" attitude, which seems to have been what occurred.
Which brings me on to poor Peter Mulgrew. He was employed by the airline to commentate to the passengers. Nothing more. In fact, unless he had flown around the area more than once before, he wouldn't have been able to identify much from the air at all. I remember from my PPL days how long it took me to reliably identify from the air geography I'd known all my life. Identifying landmarks was the job of the pilots, not Mulgrew. But he is often written about as if he were an integral member of the flying crew. He wasn't. Nothwithstanding the posthumous relevance of some of his comments on CVR, his input into the conduct of the flight should have been zero.
Which is why Collins's query to Mulgrew if he could "get them out over the Wright valley" is gobsmacking. The mind boggles as to what scenario Collins was envisaging - him hand flying VFR with Mulgrew over his shoulder saying "left here, and then if you hop over that rise you should be in a valley........."
This is actually starting to make me feel a little angry. People who believe that the crew are blameless get there through a combination of multiple assumptions and invalid reverse self-fulfilling logic. It stinks.
ampan - excellent post #1244. I wasn't aware of this discrepancy in Mahon's espousings, but it's actually pretty huge. Just another example of how he was blinkered, and brainwashed himself when confronted with evidence that didn't support his staunchly held mantra that the crew were blameless.
The Beaufort island issue has not been given the attention it deserves. It is inconceivable that Collins and Cassin didn't see it. They were flying VFR. Part of flying VFR is to identify significant geographical landmarks, and an island of 2500' elevation (when you're intending to fly even lower) would surely qualify - not just adopt some "meh, whatever" attitude, which seems to have been what occurred.
Which brings me on to poor Peter Mulgrew. He was employed by the airline to commentate to the passengers. Nothing more. In fact, unless he had flown around the area more than once before, he wouldn't have been able to identify much from the air at all. I remember from my PPL days how long it took me to reliably identify from the air geography I'd known all my life. Identifying landmarks was the job of the pilots, not Mulgrew. But he is often written about as if he were an integral member of the flying crew. He wasn't. Nothwithstanding the posthumous relevance of some of his comments on CVR, his input into the conduct of the flight should have been zero.
Which is why Collins's query to Mulgrew if he could "get them out over the Wright valley" is gobsmacking. The mind boggles as to what scenario Collins was envisaging - him hand flying VFR with Mulgrew over his shoulder saying "left here, and then if you hop over that rise you should be in a valley........."
This is actually starting to make me feel a little angry. People who believe that the crew are blameless get there through a combination of multiple assumptions and invalid reverse self-fulfilling logic. It stinks.
From the mid-1980s onwards, Messrs Mahon, Vette and Macfarlane spent significant amounts of their time blowing smoke up eachother’s backsides and urinating in eachother’s pockets.
Others of a quieter disposition, exhausted and deafened by the ceaseless beating of the one tedious drum, will happily withdraw, leaving the field clear for the purblind to applaud each other for the brilliance of their analysis.
'There are none so blind as those who will not see.'
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by fantome
'There are none so blind as those who will not see.'
Oh hang on, 'I 'thought it was over there somewhere' is an acceptable response to the passengers...
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Auckalnd
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hempy, the elevation of Erebus is 12,500'.
Which brings me on to another point not often made. Saying the aircraft hit "Mt. Erebus" presents a misleading picture to people like Mahon and the general public who don't really grasp the significance of altitude figures. 2000', 1500', 16000'......... they're just numbers to these people. And saying the aircraft hit "a mountain" conjures up images of a Mt Fuji-like edifice poking up high into the sky, an aircraft flying at altitude has its computerised track changed and collides with "the mountain".
However at 1500', there is one hell of a lot of Ross Island they could have hit without achieving "mountain" status. 1500' is low. Very very low. Lets keep everything the same about this accident - except imagine we could truncate off MT. Erebus at 1600'. The aircraft still hits the exact same spot at 1500', but there is now no "Mt. Erebus" above. We would then be describing the aircraft as "crashing into the rising ground of Ross Island" - which is of course exactly what happened. Whereas to the uninitiated, using the "hitting a mountain" language conceptually makes the accident easier to excuse.
Which brings me on to another point not often made. Saying the aircraft hit "Mt. Erebus" presents a misleading picture to people like Mahon and the general public who don't really grasp the significance of altitude figures. 2000', 1500', 16000'......... they're just numbers to these people. And saying the aircraft hit "a mountain" conjures up images of a Mt Fuji-like edifice poking up high into the sky, an aircraft flying at altitude has its computerised track changed and collides with "the mountain".
However at 1500', there is one hell of a lot of Ross Island they could have hit without achieving "mountain" status. 1500' is low. Very very low. Lets keep everything the same about this accident - except imagine we could truncate off MT. Erebus at 1600'. The aircraft still hits the exact same spot at 1500', but there is now no "Mt. Erebus" above. We would then be describing the aircraft as "crashing into the rising ground of Ross Island" - which is of course exactly what happened. Whereas to the uninitiated, using the "hitting a mountain" language conceptually makes the accident easier to excuse.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Fantome,
I would think your use of the words "mudslingers" for those of a contrary opinion to yours could well be classed as offensive.
Perhaps if you could come up with a sensible argument to counter all these irrefutable facts your posts would be of some value to the subject under discussion.
Once again fair balanced debate free of abuse and the use of offensive language is shown to not be an option for the mud-slingers.
I would think your use of the words "mudslingers" for those of a contrary opinion to yours could well be classed as offensive.
Perhaps if you could come up with a sensible argument to counter all these irrefutable facts your posts would be of some value to the subject under discussion.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Auckalnd
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would think your use of the words "mudslingers" for those of a contrary opinion to yours could well be classed as offensive
Nah, fair cop Prospector saying things like "blowing smoke up eachother’s backsides and urinating in eachother’s pockets" certainly qualifies as mudslinging. We've all been guilty of it, although I hasten to add that the good behaviour was maintained intact for far longer on "our" side of the debate. I got branded a "troll" by 3 Holer after my very first post #598.
But where I feel the Mahon side have really lacked integrity is in their failure to respond to specific points of fact, questions, and arguments. When cornered - as has occurred frequently on this thread - they will either change the topic, or repeat some irrelevant quote from Mahon. 3 Holer in particular seems to believe that if you say "Mahon was right" often enough, people will come to believe it and in fact history has shown him to be correct. It's a tactic that won't work on us, but may well do to the uninformed casually reading this thread.
I feel the Mahon side have really lacked integrity
argument(s) to counter all these irrefutable facts (of ours)
to question the integrity of others whose language is moderate and whose
motives are altogether sincere , as you might say , stinks.
to imply that in your camp you are the high and mighty all-knowing store holders of 'irrefutable facts'
which you maintain outright demolish many Mahon/Vette hypotheses,
is frankly farcical laughable and a very good reason to throw up hands in despair of these exchanges ever going anywhere truly of value to researchers into such matters.
(want a for instance? . .why keep quoting Chippindale as a reliable source as to anything , including the CVR transcripts, when it was he who so deviously doctored them.?)
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Auckalnd
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fantome - you may not care about your credibility with me; that is your right. But if you do, would you please punctuate correctly and structure your sentences and paragraphs along the lines of what you were taught in primary school? Thanks.
Yes please.
We haven't discussed/debated Chippindale's credibility in detail - we can do if you like. I would take issue with your words "deviously doctored" but yes, to be anything less than 100% transparent over the fact that his transcription of the CVR was different from the Washington one was an error of judgment. But to give you a nutshell answer to your question "why keep quoting Chippindale......." there was a hell of a lot he did get right, and he remained a highly respected figure in ICAO and the aviation community at large until his untimely death.
Give me a better "for instance" please.
want a for instance?
why keep quoting Chippindale as a reliable source as to anything , including the CVR transcripts, when it was he who so deviously doctored them
Give me a better "for instance" please.
Guest
Posts: n/a
PapaHotel6,
I read Fantomes post as stating "mudslingers". Meaning all who disagree with Mahon and Vette opinions. Perhaps I read it wrong but with Fantomes choice of words if he had of meant the post referred to it should have read "mudslinger".
I would still have not agreed, the sentiment that was expressed was couched in quite polite terms, and I believe accurately portrays the belief of many.
Fantome, you say
Once again an answer with absolutely no reference to any attempt to refute any argument that has been forwarded to
I read Fantomes post as stating "mudslingers". Meaning all who disagree with Mahon and Vette opinions. Perhaps I read it wrong but with Fantomes choice of words if he had of meant the post referred to it should have read "mudslinger".
I would still have not agreed, the sentiment that was expressed was couched in quite polite terms, and I believe accurately portrays the belief of many.
Fantome, you say
which you maintain outright demolish many Mahon/Vette hypotheses,
is frankly farcical laughable
is frankly farcical laughable
outright demolish many Mahon/Vette hypotheses,
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Metung RSL or Collingwood Social Club on weekends!
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are rather an abrasive sort of chap Papahotel6. Having a shot at Fantome about his punctuation, sentence structure etc, when you seem to struggle with basic spelling.
Your post number 1242
Were the casual factors you speak of, also causal factors in the accident?
While we are at it, I don't see any reference to 3holer calling you a troll. I see where he says the moderators sort out the trolls. So I guess your comprehension may be under some scrutiny as well as your spelling. Does this mean Fantome is vindicated?
I notice now that megan, compressor stall and 3holer et al, have moved on, the debate is no longer. It is just a few people sitting around playing with themselves and their stories/theories.
Pity.
Your post number 1242
which were significant casual factors in the accident by themselves.
While we are at it, I don't see any reference to 3holer calling you a troll. I see where he says the moderators sort out the trolls. So I guess your comprehension may be under some scrutiny as well as your spelling. Does this mean Fantome is vindicated?
I notice now that megan, compressor stall and 3holer et al, have moved on, the debate is no longer. It is just a few people sitting around playing with themselves and their stories/theories.
Pity.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New Zealand
Age: 64
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite right, Whiskery: I've just painted the ceiling after reading Macfarlane's contribution re Beaufort Island. In short, he's been caught out again. At pages 610 and 611 of The Erebus Papers he refers to the same passages that I did. So how does he avoid the obvious contradiction and avoid making his hero look like a liar? Answer: Via the simple expedient of yet another piece of deception, in that Macfarlane omits the sentence in the report that reveals the contradiction, that being the one that clearly states that Mulgrew saw Beaufort Island.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Whiskery,
I see nobody has bothered to answer your question
Wonder why?
My dictionary gives "Hypothesis" . .
That is very accurate, an assumption, and it certainly has created a considerable amount of argument.
I see nobody has bothered to answer your question
The crews going down there appeared non-compliant with most other areas such as MSA and low flying, why wouldn't they consider slowing things down for a good look. How do we know other crews didn't do it and thought it was a good idea? Would lowering flaps be as bad as hitting a mountain?
Mahon/Vette hypotheses,
A statement or theory to be proved or disproved by reference to evidence or facts
A statement or proposition assumed to be true for the sake of argument
Last edited by prospector; 25th Jul 2016 at 04:17.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern Sun
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Storytelling:
the conveying of events in words, sound and/or images, often by improvisation or embellishment. Stories or narratives have been shared in every culture as a means of entertainment, education, cultural preservation and instilling moral values. Crucial elements of stories and storytelling include plot, characters and narrative point of view.
The term 'storytelling' is used in a narrow sense to refer specifically to oral storytelling and also in a looser sense to refer to techniques used in other media to unfold or disclose the narrative of a story.
Believer:
to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so:
To have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation:
c
c
the conveying of events in words, sound and/or images, often by improvisation or embellishment. Stories or narratives have been shared in every culture as a means of entertainment, education, cultural preservation and instilling moral values. Crucial elements of stories and storytelling include plot, characters and narrative point of view.
The term 'storytelling' is used in a narrow sense to refer specifically to oral storytelling and also in a looser sense to refer to techniques used in other media to unfold or disclose the narrative of a story.
Believer:
to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so:
To have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation:
Only a few more Pebbles left!
c
c
May I say to Dark Knight that his wanderings into realms far from the Mount Erebus site, ripe though this narrative may be for sagas of the tragedian, bring to this tired and unresolvable discussion a pleasing touch of whimsy and a refreshing injection of ideas beyond the narrow picture .? Not for him the cleaving severing claymore . . rather the delicate parry of the rapier.
Touché - (now where is that priceless James Thurber cartoon with the caption Touché ?)
(too much a luddite to post that cartoon . . . . to see it just google James Thurber: touché
also note the riposte in the cartoon where touché! is replaced by cliche!
Touché - (now where is that priceless James Thurber cartoon with the caption Touché ?)
(too much a luddite to post that cartoon . . . . to see it just google James Thurber: touché
also note the riposte in the cartoon where touché! is replaced by cliche!
Last edited by Fantome; 25th Jul 2016 at 10:03.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PapaHotel6
Hempy, the elevation of Erebus is 12,500'.